VIII Migrant Selectivity and the Growth of Large Cities in Developing Societies Harley L. Browning Policymakers are not of one mind when it comes to evaluating internal migration, particularly rural-urban migration, in the developing countries. Some see it as a means of speeding up economic development while others believe its consequences are largely undesirable and therefore recommend that it be discouraged. Scholars, too, are divided on this question. Although their positions sometimes emerge out of direct experience, I believe they are predisposed to view cityward migration either favorably or unfavorably by certain fundamental heritages of the various disciplines. To elaborate this point, let us select economics and sociology as contrasting viewpoints, nevertheless acknowledging the considerable diversity of opinion within each discipline. EVALUATING RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION Many economists tend to approve internal migration because they take it for granted that in a dynamic economy different regions (and their rural and urban sectors) will grow at different rates and that labor mobility is required to insure the most effective development of the economy. Schultz (1), for example, remarks, "Economic growth requires much internal migration of workers to adjust to changing job opportunities." Increasingly, economists are coming to view migration as an investment in human capital. Schultz believes that "migration of individuals and families to adjust to changing job opportunities" is one of five major ways of improving human capabilities (the Harley Browning is Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Population Research Center, University of Texas. The author expresses appreciation to Dcnton Vaughan for his assistance in putting tliic nan^r totrf>f1lf>r anH tn Tni-af> Ralon nnH WnH-ront I?Ģin/1t Fnr flir.it- lifOnfnl CTKro-petinnce Khanna Study. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, 1971., 1968.